2016-12-01 12:23 GMT+01:00 ‘Rupert Smith’ via Elm Discuss < [email protected]>:
Its not a solution I would reach for quickly, but decomposing record types > and functions over them in this way does seem entirely permissable within > the language. It’s certainly doable/permissible in the language Elm, but it is strongly discouraged by the designer of Elm. There have been several discussions revolving around this in the past, on GitHub and the mailing list(s). Search for something like “record nesting is better than record extension” (that’s Evan’s claim). For example: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/elm-discuss/AaL8iLjhEdU/pBe29vQdCgAJ. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Elm Discuss" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
